Some have criticized Ehrlich for not sufficiently acknowledging the mistakes he has made in the past, and maintaining a consistent argument in spite of new countervailing evidence. Gardner believes that Ehrlich has been insufficiently forthright in acknowledging errors he made, while being intellectually dishonest or evasive in taking credit for things he claims he got "right". For example, he rarely acknowledges the mistakes he made in predicting material shortages, massive death tolls from starvation (up to one billion in Age of Affluence) or regarding the collapse of specific countries. Meanwhile, he is happy to claim credit for "predicting" the rise of AIDS or global warming. However, in the case of disease, Ehrlich had predicted the rise of a disease based on overcrowding, or the weakened immune systems of starving people, so it is "a stretch to see this as forecasting the emergence of AIDS in the 1980s." Similarly, global warming was one of the scenarios that Ehrlich outlined, so claiming credit for it, while disavowing responsibility for failed scenarios is a double standard. Gardner believes that Ehrlich is displaying classical signs of cognitive dissonance, and that his failure to grapple with obvious errors in his own judgement render his current thinking suspect.

But the scyents!_________________Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused

I have found a certain type calls himself a liberal . . . Now I always thought I was a liberal. I came up terribly surprised one time when I found out that I was a right-wing conservative extremist, when I listened to everybody's point of view that I ever met, and then decided how I should feel. But this so-called new liberal group, Jesus, they never listen to your point of view . . .

I think that the loud roar of irresponsible liberalism . . . is being quieted down by a reasoning public. I think the pendulum is swinging back. We're remembering that the past can't be so bad. We built a nation on it. We have to look to tomorrow.

Very few of the so-called liberals are open-minded . . . they shout you down and won't let you speak if you disagree with them.

If it hadn't been for football and the fact I got my leg broke and had to go into the movies to eat, why, who knows, I might have turned out to be a liberal Democrat.

in spite of the articulate liberal press - whose only purpose is to sell toilet paper and Toyotas

Hell yes, I'm a liberal. I listen to both sides before I make up my mind. Doesn't that make you a liberal? Not in today's terms, it doesn't. These days, you have to be a fucking left-wing radical to be a liberal. Politically, though ... I've mellowed. (1973)

Quite obviously, the Black Panthers represent a danger to society. They're a violent group of young men and women - adventurous, opinionated and dedicated - and they throw their disdain in our face. Now, I hear some of these liberals saying they'd like to be held as white hostages in the Black Panther offices and stay there so that they could see what happens on these early-morning police raids. It might be a better idea for these good citizens to go with the police on a raid. When they search a Panther hideout for firearms, let these do-gooders knock and say, "Open the door in the name of the law" and get shot at.

_________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

The genocide was carried out by the Spanish, British, French, and Dutch, who brought new diseases and dragged the natives into their wars against each other. The 15% or so who were left had mostly regressed to neolithic tatters of what their cultures had been, and most of them integrated into the settler cultures. It's true that those who didn't were forced onto reservations, but those numbers are tiny compared to what the Native population had been when Europeans first arrived.

Where I live, probably half the population have some Native blood, although by now few have more than 1/8th. Many don't have any idea for sure, but assume it to be true. Nearby, there are two small reservations, and the people who live there do so by choice. Some of them are wealthier than you or I, operating casinos and selling products tax free to outsiders (illegally, but it's largely overlooked by the authorities).

The Native American cultures and peoples are part of what became America. Europeans and Asian, having gained most of their understanding from movies and left-wing propaganda intended to minimize their own culture's misdeeds of rapacious imperialistic oppression, fail to understand that Americans are proud we are part Native. That's why Native American culture is present in our in our place names, our traditions and symbolism, our language, our music, our medicine, our athletics teams, our military units, tactics, and equipment. Half the stuff the Boy Scouts teach is Native American.

The Westward expansion was no more a "genocide" than the arrival of the Angles and Jutes in England, and even less so than the arrival of the French (Normans) or Romans._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

My people became the finest light cavalry this world has ever seen, and while true the Europeans did a good job of destroying whole cultures, those boys in blue did their fair share also._________________Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused

There were some well-remembered incidents, but the numbers involved pale in comparison to the millions wiped off the face of the Earth by the Europeans. There were entire cultures that just vanished into non-existence and have only come to light now due to archeology._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

The Shoshone Bannock War was kept form the American public. No one east of the Rockies knew about it, but anyone crossing the Snake River soon found out. It wasn't until the early 1900s that the rebellion was silenced. By the by, the Shoshone people got along well with the Mormons, who would pay to cross Shoshone territory._________________Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused

The Westward expansion was no more a "genocide" than the arrival of the Angles and Jutes in England, and even less so than the arrival of the French (Normans) or Romans.

Westward expansion not genocide... Wow! Are you trying to win a Nobel Prize for historical revisionism? That might just do it.

While the U.S. "Indian Wars", the "Trail of Tears" and "Westward Expansion" killed tens of thousands, no academically credible history documents it as genocide. The Europeans, on the other hand, were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Native Americans, driving the indigenous civilizations of two entire continents to the brink of extinction.

The Indian Wars weren't as one-sided as the are now portrayed in politically correct movies. The Native Americans were far from helpless. Some 30,000 Natives died in them, but they took about 20,000 white men with them, according to the U.S. Census Bureau._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

The Westward expansion was no more a "genocide" than the arrival of the Angles and Jutes in England, and even less so than the arrival of the French (Normans) or Romans.

Westward expansion not genocide... Wow! Are you trying to win a Nobel Prize for historical revisionism? That might just do it.

While the U.S. "Indian Wars", the "Trail of Tears" and "Westward Expansion" killed tens of thousands, no academically credible history documents it as genocide. The Europeans, on the other hand, were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Native Americans, driving the indigenous civilizations of two entire continents to the brink of extinction.

The Indian Wars weren't as one-sided as the are now portrayed in politically correct movies. The Native Americans were far from helpless. Some 30,000 Natives died in them, but they took about 20,000 white men with them, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Westward expansion was no more a "genocide" than the arrival of the Angles and Jutes in England, and even less so than the arrival of the French (Normans) or Romans.

Westward expansion not genocide... Wow! Are you trying to win a Nobel Prize for historical revisionism? That might just do it.

While the U.S. "Indian Wars", the "Trail of Tears" and "Westward Expansion" killed tens of thousands, no academically credible history documents it as genocide. The Europeans, on the other hand, were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Native Americans, driving the indigenous civilizations of two entire continents to the brink of extinction.

The Indian Wars weren't as one-sided as the are now portrayed in politically correct movies. The Native Americans were far from helpless. Some 30,000 Natives died in them, but they took about 20,000 white men with them, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

\

where do you draw the line between british and american?

The Natives of the East Coast were used by Britain and France for the Europeans colonial interests. The French were much more successful in cooperation with the native people. It was the American, Andrew Jackson, that backstabber, who screwed the East Coast natives. While the Northern Plains tribes had been relatively unaffected until the westward Manifest Destiny push, the Western and especially the Southwestern cultures had already been decimated by the Spanish in their zeal to convert the world to Papal Authority and filling the coffers of the nobility with stolen gold and silver._________________Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused

++ although I think you minimize the consequences of disease brought by the early European explorers and colonists, and the number of natives who died fighting for the French or British against the other. Whole tribes throughout the Northeast that had lived in relative peace for centuries basically went into the business of being mercenaries. It would be like if the Federation landed here and the Klingons landed in China and dragged us into a war of attrition against each other.

Trivia. A community of Scottish settlers then went pretty far inland (for that day) ended up integrating into the local Creek tribe (Red-Stick), instead of the other way around. One of them, a William Weatherford a.k.a. Red Eagle became one of Andrew Jackson's most noted foes and fought against him at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend (the largest mass-killing of Natives in all of the U.S. battles with Natives, with nearly 600 killed).

With you referring to Jackson as a back-stabber, I take it your ancestors were either Cherokee or White-Stick Creek, who fought with Jackson and were, it is said, promised the right to stay on their land if they did so.

The Red Sticks were essentially fighting for the Spanish, who still held "Florida Plus" at this point, and they were also being egged on and given support by the British (this was happening right in the middle of the War of 1812). Your grandfather's Conquistador helmet could conceivably have come from the Southeast.

So you and mcgruff are natural enemies. Those "Scotch/Irish" who settled in that general region were also the people who later became the Hillbillies and three-toothed rednecks, and that's why our folk music has a Celtic twang to it._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before